I was thinking about the characters in The Cherry Orchard and their purpose throughout the novel. When it came to Madame Renevsky, I was trying to think of a deeper meaning for her. When we were first introduced to her she was known as the woman who used to live on the Cherry Orchard. We met her daughter and her brother and saw those relationships. Then throughout the rest of the novel we see Madame Renevsky upset because she has no money, she doesn't know how to feel towards her lover in Paris, but most of all, she is upset because her cherry orchard is going to be auctioned off.
Besides the fact that she used to live on this cherry orchard, what other ideas do you have for her importance throughout the novel? She is obviously connected to the past of the cherry orchard and has helped all the other characters connect to one another, but what are some of her other purposes? - szd-c Mar 9, 2008
I think that Madame Renevsky was really just the base of the novel. It really is because or through her that all the other characters know one another: she is, in a way, the center of each character's respective world. As an actual character model, she is a weak character. She cannot make any important decisions, even with the advice of others, but she is easily persuaded to do little things that rarely benefit her. She constantly gives away her money, she cannot decide what to do about the orchard until it is too late, and at the end of the play she returns to her abusive, cheating, dying lover in Paris. By herself, she really is nothing more than a flim-flammy character with no direction in life; however, because of her weak character, she gets along with most other characters in the play, and because of this she allows the other characters from different walks of life an opportunity to meet and interact as each other. It is in these interactions that the majority of the drama and interest in the book is generated so this purpose is not negligible; however, besides this purpose, the character as a whole is generally weak and lacks a strong purpose or direction. - dsU-c Mar 10, 2008
I think Madame Ranevsky's main function in the novel is to represent the old wealthy class that is failing from power. She simply watches as her wealth falls apart. Actually, what she does is worse than simply watching it, she squanders her money to only speed up her bankruptcy. Brother Tom asked us whether Madame Ranevsky and her brother, Gayef, were parasites. I think that they most definitely are. Throughout the entire play, we hear no mention of either of them working or trying to protect the estate. They simply live off the wealth of their ancestors and are completely shocked to learn that it won't always be there. Ranevsky is also a very proud character. Even when Lopakhin suggests a way for her to keep the estate by renting off some of her property, she refuses. She doesn't even seem to consider the possibility. It's as if that would be beneath her. Instead of working to protect her wealth, she wishes for a miracle to help her save her wealth. Another thing I noticed about Madame Ranevsky is that she always seems to be drowning in memories of her past days in the house. This emotion is especially strong, no doubt, because she begins to realize that she will lose it. However, these memories also show us that Madame Ranevsky is stuck in the past. She wants to remain in the "glory days" of her ancestors. - Kho-c Mar 10, 2008
Though Madame Ranevsky was more than a little spoiled and thoughtless, she had her redeeming qualities, and, I don't know about the rest of you, but I was always rooting for her. She had been through her fair share of pain (despite her pampered lifestyle) with her husband and son's deaths, and her lover turning out to be not such a great guy. She didn't know how to deal with all of that, so she ran away, and when Paris didn't work out, she ran home. In this way, I think she most definitely represented the old aristocracy of Russia because she was looking to the past, her childhood, for stability and happiness. Therefore, she wasn't being lazy by avoiding the issue of selling the orchard, she just couldn't bear to let go of the only source of happiness in her life--her memories.
I think Ranevsky is the character that makes this play a comedy. While other characters might have a few humorous lines, Ranevsky ends the play by having her orchard ripped from her, but in that, she is freed from her ties to the past, and she has the possibility to look for hope in the future, rather than in the past. Br. Tom mentioned that this play has dark themes, but the distinction of comedy comes because the charcters have options and hope in the end, and this is most definitely true of Madame Ranevsky. - lsi-c Mar 10, 2008
I definitely think Ranevsky symbolizes the stereotypical upper class. She has a lack of intelligence when it comes to money, and she just keeps giving it away. Her neighbor asked for money to pay his mortgage, and she just gave it to him, though she said herself that she didn't have the money to give. She just runs from her problems because she doesn't have the intellect or even the common sense to deal with them, especially when it comes to money. I feel bad for her, actually. It isn't her fault that she is spoiled and uneducated. And the other characters, especially Lopakhin, talked about how nice she was to everyone. She just..wasn't very smart. - mmi-c Mar 10, 2008
Madam Ranevsky puzzled me quite a bit because I couldn't really put an exact stereotype on her, but that might be a good thing. To me, she was the base of the novel. If we didn't have her, there would be no drama about the cherry orchard. She came across to me as an uneducated upper-class woman. She was over-dramatic, but this was also hysterical when it came into context at times. Her lack of knowledge with money just made it more humorous when the cherry orchard was auctioned off. She was pitiful at parts too, because of her lack of intelligence. Giving money away when she barely had any, not to mention the second beforehand, she was in tears because she realized she was losing one of the tangible objects that meant the world to her. But without any of these characteristics, she would not have been the Madam Ranevsky that made the book all it was. - bzw-c Mar 10, 2008
I think Madame Renevsky's main purpose was to connect all the characters together because without her some of the characters would not even interact with each other since their common acquaintance with Madame would be nonexistent. I found it fairly easy to stereotype her actually. To me she was the traditional upper class woman; she couldn't make any decision on her own; she was absent-minded and foolish with her own money, and she turned even the smallest thing into a big deal. She serves as an example of someone who could have prevented her own demise, yet through her own stupidity she has effectively dug her own grave. This portrayal is a satire of the upper class and that just because someone is rich does not necessarily mean they have earned it or are suited for it.- MSu-c Mar 12, 2008
Well, not just that she contributes a portion of the plot, I mean, she could do anything and the plot would just change. In other words, she isn't a tool to get the plot moving, she's part of the plot, and the plot changes to her, she's not just an interchangeable item that the author used to make something happen. Actually, a good portion of the book is about her, and telling HER story. She's a really cowardly character, I think. She flees whenever there's trouble, just as we see, and she cannot stand up and fend for herself, she just agonizes and ends up losing everything. And she really exemplifies the point the author might have been trying to make about the thinking class in Russia, because she, as a landowner, sure doesn't do much of anything except cower, make those around her miserable, and lose money. Sure she's got a heart, she's kind, but, the book seems to figure, should she really be in charge of so much being such a terrible landowner/manager/leader? Her servants are eating peas, meanwhile, she's handing away gold coins and holding parties with music she can't afford. So there's all that... - AZU-C Mar 12, 2008
I found Madame Ranevsky very intriguing. She was very much in denial and had trouble facing reality. Writing is always intentional, and so Chekhov obviously put Ranevsky in the play to illustrate an idea he had specifically for her, or to have her help to illustrate an even bigger idea in the play itself. I think he was showing how the past will always catch up to you, and that pushing the past away doesn't make it go away, but it rather makes things worse. Ranevsky refused to deal with her past and refused to recognize that she had problems with money. I think Chekhov used Ranevsky as a way to show the destructiveness of denial. In the end, Ranevsky had a chance to be happy, but she lost much more at that point than was really necessary. Had she kept her spending in control, she could have kept her beloved Cherry Orchard that brought her so much joy in the past, and may have stayed with the family rather than going back to a man who was unfaithful to her. - LDo-c Mar 12, 2008
I struggled a lot with Madame Ranevsky. I sympathized with her so much in that sometimes it is so hard to face reality that one will do almost anything in order to avoid focusing on it. I didn't think she was the most intelligent of women, that's for sure. I think she was a very kind and gentle woman, who truly loved her children and her family, but didn't know how to put herself first in any situation. Because of this, she ends up being left by her husband in France, practically penniless, and still tries to give what little money she has to anyone who comes her way, including complete strangers. I have no doubt in my mind that Ranevsky loves her family to death, but she has little to no idea how to provide for them, which I believe is the source of much of the unhappiness found in the play. It is obvious that Barbara and Anya constantly worry about their mother and her spending habits, but it is also very clear that they are understanding and still love her. I don't think it would be possible for her family to love Madame Ranevsky as much as they do if she was a bad person. I believe Ranevsky is unfortunate and misguided, but a good, loving person at heart. - MRo-c Mar 12, 2008
I think Madame Renevsky was a manifestation of one of the ways we can lose our history and our ties to the past. This was one of the major themes of the play and it applies here too. Yes Madame Renevsky was totally against chopping down the Cherry Orchard. It was her home, her tie to the past, her childhood. But she also led to its demise. She spent her money carelessly without thinking of any of the ramifications. She was not thinking of the home that she would eventually lose because of it. I think that Chekhov was trying to show that the preservation of the past and our history takes active and conscious effort, otherwise we will lose it. There were other more direct characters that led to the demise of the cherry orchard, like lophakin, who actually bought it and chopped it down for villas to make more money, but he was not the only one. Renevsky is at just as much fault.- MKo-c Mar 12, 2008
Madame Ranevsky struggled a lot with herself. She had no self identification, she had no feelings of personal self worth. She identified herself to a cherry orchard, the place that haunts her because of all of the painful memories associated with the death of her husband and even more so by the loss of her own son, Grisha. She is also constantly fleeing, thinking that by running she can escape reality, instead of facing the situations in life. Maybe the cards she has been dealt aren't the greatest, but anyone who has struggled will tell you that you have to keep going. She tries with the most desperate of efforts to not keep going, but go back. Her lover in Paris is unfaithful to her and even abuses her, so she returns to the cherry orchard. This was once her home, where she lived with her family. Instead of remembering those happy times of the family that she built before the tragic deaths of her husband and son, she goes farther back all the way to her childhod. She envisions her mother. At the end of the story, she runs away again, with no money and no sense of how to make responsible finacial decisions back to her lover in Paris. I do not understand why Madame Ranevsky is so blind to her own life. I feel sorry for her though, because she seems to be one of the nicer characters. She seems innocent to me, almsot childlike, possibly because she looks at life through adult eyes still with the mind of the young girl she once was. - AGe-c Mar 13, 2008
I do not feel sorry for Madame Ranevsky. I do feel bad that she lost her husband and then her son shortly after too, but she also abandoned her daughter not once, but twice by fleeing to Paris. Yes she is lonely, but she does have two daughters that she apparently loves so much that she would ditch twice and not see for years on end. She needs to grow up. She doesn't want to take responsiblity for the estate or for her own life. She needs a man to take care of her. Personally I think she just needs to face reality and get over it. She is blind to her life like AGe pointed out, but that's her fault. She's an adult, and she's a parent. Madame Ranevsky needs to start acting like one for she gets to flee to Paris while Barbara is stuck working for another family. Who's fault is that? - kva-c Mar 13, 2008
I cannot and do not feel sympathy for Madam Ranevsky. She is the epitome of the Russian aristocracy who squanders everything that she has. She has this entire orchard and then ends up moving away to Paris for a few years after her husband's death and ends up with this French man who screws her out of her money and takes advantage of her. In class, we talked about how one of the big failures of the Russian aristocracy in its last years was this rampant obsession with French culture, and I think that Madame Ranevsky is the perfect example of this. Even when she is brought home to Russia by her family, she still feels this urge to return to Paris to be with that foolish free-loader instead of focusing on the business at hand of preserving and protecting the cherry orchard. Then, this woman gets frustrated at the prospect of the orchard being sold and promptly does little to nothing to save it. It's like she likes the idea of saving the orchard, but isn't willing to put forth the effort to truly save what she has. She would much rather concern herself with Paris and instead decides to ignore the issues at hand. She is the perfect satire of the Russian aristocracy with her absent-mindedness at how the rug is being pulled out from under her. If she stood up and acted like a respectable adult, she could save everything, but she instead acts like a child and just sort of sits back hoping that everything will work itself out.- KRi-c Mar 13, 2008
haha KRi, i agree with you completely. Madame Ranevsky is the embodiment of Russian aristocracy. She has connections to the old Orchard and then ran away to France, coming back and continuing her obsession with France. It was like she was not thankful for her position in Russia and Russia social position. She should realize how lucky she is, rather than looking to France enviously. She is laziness and obsession and completely self-obsessed. She disregards what those around her need. She is a passive person, just letting everything happen and not taking life on actively. She does not try to fix problems, just wants them to work out for themselves. - MFi-c Mar 13, 2008----
Besides the fact that she used to live on this cherry orchard, what other ideas do you have for her importance throughout the novel? She is obviously connected to the past of the cherry orchard and has helped all the other characters connect to one another, but what are some of her other purposes?
-
I think that Madame Renevsky was really just the base of the novel. It really is because or through her that all the other characters know one another: she is, in a way, the center of each character's respective world. As an actual character model, she is a weak character. She cannot make any important decisions, even with the advice of others, but she is easily persuaded to do little things that rarely benefit her. She constantly gives away her money, she cannot decide what to do about the orchard until it is too late, and at the end of the play she returns to her abusive, cheating, dying lover in Paris. By herself, she really is nothing more than a flim-flammy character with no direction in life; however, because of her weak character, she gets along with most other characters in the play, and because of this she allows the other characters from different walks of life an opportunity to meet and interact as each other. It is in these interactions that the majority of the drama and interest in the book is generated so this purpose is not negligible; however, besides this purpose, the character as a whole is generally weak and lacks a strong purpose or direction.
-
I think Madame Ranevsky's main function in the novel is to represent the old wealthy class that is failing from power. She simply watches as her wealth falls apart. Actually, what she does is worse than simply watching it, she squanders her money to only speed up her bankruptcy. Brother Tom asked us whether Madame Ranevsky and her brother, Gayef, were parasites. I think that they most definitely are. Throughout the entire play, we hear no mention of either of them working or trying to protect the estate. They simply live off the wealth of their ancestors and are completely shocked to learn that it won't always be there. Ranevsky is also a very proud character. Even when Lopakhin suggests a way for her to keep the estate by renting off some of her property, she refuses. She doesn't even seem to consider the possibility. It's as if that would be beneath her. Instead of working to protect her wealth, she wishes for a miracle to help her save her wealth. Another thing I noticed about Madame Ranevsky is that she always seems to be drowning in memories of her past days in the house. This emotion is especially strong, no doubt, because she begins to realize that she will lose it. However, these memories also show us that Madame Ranevsky is stuck in the past. She wants to remain in the "glory days" of her ancestors. -
Though Madame Ranevsky was more than a little spoiled and thoughtless, she had her redeeming qualities, and, I don't know about the rest of you, but I was always rooting for her. She had been through her fair share of pain (despite her pampered lifestyle) with her husband and son's deaths, and her lover turning out to be not such a great guy. She didn't know how to deal with all of that, so she ran away, and when Paris didn't work out, she ran home. In this way, I think she most definitely represented the old aristocracy of Russia because she was looking to the past, her childhood, for stability and happiness. Therefore, she wasn't being lazy by avoiding the issue of selling the orchard, she just couldn't bear to let go of the only source of happiness in her life--her memories.
I think Ranevsky is the character that makes this play a comedy. While other characters might have a few humorous lines, Ranevsky ends the play by having her orchard ripped from her, but in that, she is freed from her ties to the past, and she has the possibility to look for hope in the future, rather than in the past. Br. Tom mentioned that this play has dark themes, but the distinction of comedy comes because the charcters have options and hope in the end, and this is most definitely true of Madame Ranevsky. -
I definitely think Ranevsky symbolizes the stereotypical upper class. She has a lack of intelligence when it comes to money, and she just keeps giving it away. Her neighbor asked for money to pay his mortgage, and she just gave it to him, though she said herself that she didn't have the money to give. She just runs from her problems because she doesn't have the intellect or even the common sense to deal with them, especially when it comes to money. I feel bad for her, actually. It isn't her fault that she is spoiled and uneducated. And the other characters, especially Lopakhin, talked about how nice she was to everyone. She just..wasn't very smart. -
Madam Ranevsky puzzled me quite a bit because I couldn't really put an exact stereotype on her, but that might be a good thing. To me, she was the base of the novel. If we didn't have her, there would be no drama about the cherry orchard. She came across to me as an uneducated upper-class woman. She was over-dramatic, but this was also hysterical when it came into context at times. Her lack of knowledge with money just made it more humorous when the cherry orchard was auctioned off. She was pitiful at parts too, because of her lack of intelligence. Giving money away when she barely had any, not to mention the second beforehand, she was in tears because she realized she was losing one of the tangible objects that meant the world to her. But without any of these characteristics, she would not have been the Madam Ranevsky that made the book all it was. -
I think Madame Renevsky's main purpose was to connect all the characters together because without her some of the characters would not even interact with each other since their common acquaintance with Madame would be nonexistent. I found it fairly easy to stereotype her actually. To me she was the traditional upper class woman; she couldn't make any decision on her own; she was absent-minded and foolish with her own money, and she turned even the smallest thing into a big deal. She serves as an example of someone who could have prevented her own demise, yet through her own stupidity she has effectively dug her own grave. This portrayal is a satire of the upper class and that just because someone is rich does not necessarily mean they have earned it or are suited for it.-
Well, not just that she contributes a portion of the plot, I mean, she could do anything and the plot would just change. In other words, she isn't a tool to get the plot moving, she's part of the plot, and the plot changes to her, she's not just an interchangeable item that the author used to make something happen. Actually, a good portion of the book is about her, and telling HER story. She's a really cowardly character, I think. She flees whenever there's trouble, just as we see, and she cannot stand up and fend for herself, she just agonizes and ends up losing everything. And she really exemplifies the point the author might have been trying to make about the thinking class in Russia, because she, as a landowner, sure doesn't do much of anything except cower, make those around her miserable, and lose money. Sure she's got a heart, she's kind, but, the book seems to figure, should she really be in charge of so much being such a terrible landowner/manager/leader? Her servants are eating peas, meanwhile, she's handing away gold coins and holding parties with music she can't afford. So there's all that... -
I found Madame Ranevsky very intriguing. She was very much in denial and had trouble facing reality. Writing is always intentional, and so Chekhov obviously put Ranevsky in the play to illustrate an idea he had specifically for her, or to have her help to illustrate an even bigger idea in the play itself. I think he was showing how the past will always catch up to you, and that pushing the past away doesn't make it go away, but it rather makes things worse. Ranevsky refused to deal with her past and refused to recognize that she had problems with money. I think Chekhov used Ranevsky as a way to show the destructiveness of denial. In the end, Ranevsky had a chance to be happy, but she lost much more at that point than was really necessary. Had she kept her spending in control, she could have kept her beloved Cherry Orchard that brought her so much joy in the past, and may have stayed with the family rather than going back to a man who was unfaithful to her.
-
I struggled a lot with Madame Ranevsky. I sympathized with her so much in that sometimes it is so hard to face reality that one will do almost anything in order to avoid focusing on it. I didn't think she was the most intelligent of women, that's for sure. I think she was a very kind and gentle woman, who truly loved her children and her family, but didn't know how to put herself first in any situation. Because of this, she ends up being left by her husband in France, practically penniless, and still tries to give what little money she has to anyone who comes her way, including complete strangers. I have no doubt in my mind that Ranevsky loves her family to death, but she has little to no idea how to provide for them, which I believe is the source of much of the unhappiness found in the play. It is obvious that Barbara and Anya constantly worry about their mother and her spending habits, but it is also very clear that they are understanding and still love her. I don't think it would be possible for her family to love Madame Ranevsky as much as they do if she was a bad person. I believe Ranevsky is unfortunate and misguided, but a good, loving person at heart.
-
I think Madame Renevsky was a manifestation of one of the ways we can lose our history and our ties to the past. This was one of the major themes of the play and it applies here too. Yes Madame Renevsky was totally against chopping down the Cherry Orchard. It was her home, her tie to the past, her childhood. But she also led to its demise. She spent her money carelessly without thinking of any of the ramifications. She was not thinking of the home that she would eventually lose because of it. I think that Chekhov was trying to show that the preservation of the past and our history takes active and conscious effort, otherwise we will lose it. There were other more direct characters that led to the demise of the cherry orchard, like lophakin, who actually bought it and chopped it down for villas to make more money, but he was not the only one. Renevsky is at just as much fault.-
Madame Ranevsky struggled a lot with herself. She had no self identification, she had no feelings of personal self worth. She identified herself to a cherry orchard, the place that haunts her because of all of the painful memories associated with the death of her husband and even more so by the loss of her own son, Grisha. She is also constantly fleeing, thinking that by running she can escape reality, instead of facing the situations in life. Maybe the cards she has been dealt aren't the greatest, but anyone who has struggled will tell you that you have to keep going. She tries with the most desperate of efforts to not keep going, but go back. Her lover in Paris is unfaithful to her and even abuses her, so she returns to the cherry orchard. This was once her home, where she lived with her family. Instead of remembering those happy times of the family that she built before the tragic deaths of her husband and son, she goes farther back all the way to her childhod. She envisions her mother. At the end of the story, she runs away again, with no money and no sense of how to make responsible finacial decisions back to her lover in Paris. I do not understand why Madame Ranevsky is so blind to her own life. I feel sorry for her though, because she seems to be one of the nicer characters. She seems innocent to me, almsot childlike, possibly because she looks at life through adult eyes still with the mind of the young girl she once was. -
I do not feel sorry for Madame Ranevsky. I do feel bad that she lost her husband and then her son shortly after too, but she also abandoned her daughter not once, but twice by fleeing to Paris. Yes she is lonely, but she does have two daughters that she apparently loves so much that she would ditch twice and not see for years on end. She needs to grow up. She doesn't want to take responsiblity for the estate or for her own life. She needs a man to take care of her. Personally I think she just needs to face reality and get over it. She is blind to her life like AGe pointed out, but that's her fault. She's an adult, and she's a parent. Madame Ranevsky needs to start acting like one for she gets to flee to Paris while Barbara is stuck working for another family. Who's fault is that?
-
I cannot and do not feel sympathy for Madam Ranevsky. She is the epitome of the Russian aristocracy who squanders everything that she has. She has this entire orchard and then ends up moving away to Paris for a few years after her husband's death and ends up with this French man who screws her out of her money and takes advantage of her. In class, we talked about how one of the big failures of the Russian aristocracy in its last years was this rampant obsession with French culture, and I think that Madame Ranevsky is the perfect example of this. Even when she is brought home to Russia by her family, she still feels this urge to return to Paris to be with that foolish free-loader instead of focusing on the business at hand of preserving and protecting the cherry orchard. Then, this woman gets frustrated at the prospect of the orchard being sold and promptly does little to nothing to save it. It's like she likes the idea of saving the orchard, but isn't willing to put forth the effort to truly save what she has. She would much rather concern herself with Paris and instead decides to ignore the issues at hand. She is the perfect satire of the Russian aristocracy with her absent-mindedness at how the rug is being pulled out from under her. If she stood up and acted like a respectable adult, she could save everything, but she instead acts like a child and just sort of sits back hoping that everything will work itself out.-
haha KRi, i agree with you completely. Madame Ranevsky is the embodiment of Russian aristocracy. She has connections to the old Orchard and then ran away to France, coming back and continuing her obsession with France. It was like she was not thankful for her position in Russia and Russia social position. She should realize how lucky she is, rather than looking to France enviously. She is laziness and obsession and completely self-obsessed. She disregards what those around her need. She is a passive person, just letting everything happen and not taking life on actively. She does not try to fix problems, just wants them to work out for themselves.
-